G.R. No. L-49120 June 30, 1988 ESTATE OF GEORGE LITTON, petitioner, vs. CIRIACO B.

. MENDOZA and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. Ruben G. Bala for respondent Mendoza. GANCAYCO, J.: This petition for review presents two (2) main issues, to wit: (1) Can a plaintiff in a case, who had previously assigned in favor of his creditor his litigated credit in said case, by a deed of assignment which was duly submitted to the court, validly enter into a compromise agreement thereafter releasing the defendant therein from his claim without notice to his assignee? and (2) Will such previous knowledge on the part of the defendant of the assignment made by the plaintiff estop said defendant from invoking said compromise as a ground for dismissal of the action against him? The present case stemmed from Civil Case No. Q-8303 1 entitled "Alfonso Tan vs. Ciriaco B. Mendoza," an action for the collection of a sum of money representing the value of two (2) checks which plaintiff Tan claims to have been delivered to him by defendant Mendoza, private respondent herein, by way of guaranty with a commission. The record discloses that the Bernal spouses 2 are engaged in the manufacture of embroidery, garments and cotton materials. Sometime in September 1963, C.B.M. Products, 3 with Mendoza as president, offered to sell to the Bernals textile cotton materials and, for this purpose, Mendoza introduced the Bernals to Alfonso Tan. Thus, the Bernals purchased on credit from Tan some cotton materials worth P 80,796.62, payment of which was guaranteed by Mendoza. Thereupon, Tan delivered the said cotton materials to the Bernals. In view of the said arrangement, on November 1963, C.B.M. Products, through Mendoza, asked and received from the Bernals PBTC Check No. 626405 for P 80,796.62 dated February 20, 1964 with the understanding that the said check will remain in the possession of Mendoza until the cotton materials are finally manufactured into garments after which time Mendoza will sell the finished products for the Bernals. Meanwhile, the said check matured without having been cashed and Mendoza demanded the issuance of another check 4 in the same amount without a date. On the other hand, on February 28, 1964, defendant Mendoza issued two (2) PNB checks 5 in favor of Tan in the total amount of P 80,796.62. He informed the Bernals of the same and told them that they are indebted to him and asked the latter to sign an instrument whereby Mendoza assigned the said amount to Insular Products Inc. Tan had the two checks issued by Mendoza discounted in a bank. However, the said checks were later returned to Tan with the words stamped "stop payment" which appears to have been ordered by Mendoza for failure of the Bernals to deposit sufficient funds for the check that the Bernals issued in favor of Mendoza. Hence, as adverted to above, Tan brought an action against Mendoza docketed as Civil Case No. Q-8303 6 while the Bernals brought an action for interpleader docketed as Civil Case No. 56850 7 for not knowing whom to pay. While both actions were pending resolution by the trial court, on March 20, 1966, Tan assigned in favor of George Litton, Sr. his litigatious credit * in Civil Case No. 56850 against Mendoza, duly submitted to the court, with notice to the parties. 8 The deed of assignment was framed in the following tenor: DEED OF ASSIGNMENT I, ALFONSO TAN, of age, Chinese, married to UY CHAY UA, residing at No. 6 Kanlaon, Quezon City, doing business under the name and style ALTA COMMERCIAL by way of

securing or guaranteeing my obligation to Mr. GEORGE LITTON, SR., do by these presents CEDE, ASSIGN, TRANSFER AND CONVEY unto the said Mr. GEORGE LITTON, SR., my claim against C.B.M. Products, Inc., personally guaranteed by Mr. Ciriaco B. Mendoza, in the amount of Eighty-Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety Six Pesos and Sixty-two centavos (P 80,796.62) the balance of which, in principal, and excluding, interests, costs, damages and attorney's fees now stands at P 76,000.00, P 4,796.62, having already been received by the assignor on December 23, 1965, pursuant to the order of the court in Civil Case No. 56850, C.F.I., Manila, authorizing Alfonso Tan to withdraw the amount of P 4,796.62 then on deposit with the court. All rights, and interests in said net amount, plus interests and costs, and less attorney's fees, in case the amount allowed therefor be less than the amounts claimed in the relief in Civil Case 56850 (C.F.I., Manila) and Q-8503 (C.F.I., Quezon City) are by these presents covered by this assignment. I further undertake to hold in trust any and all amounts which may hereafter be realized from the aforementioned cases for the ASSIGNEE, Mr. GEORGE LITTON, SR., and to turn over to him such amounts in application to my liability to him, as his interest may then show, and I further undertake to cooperate towards the successful prosecution of the aforementioned cases making available myself, as witness or otherwise, as well as any and all documents thereto appertaining. ... 9 After due trial, the lower court ruled that the said PNB checks were issued by Mendoza in favor of Tan for a commission in the sum of P 4,847.79 and held Mendoza liable as a drawer whose liability is primary and not merely as an indorser and thus directed Mendoza to pay Tan the sum of P 76,000.00, the sum still due, plus damages and attorney's fees. 10 Mendoza seasonably filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals, dockted as C.A. G.R. No. 41900-R, arguing in the main that his liability is one of an accommodation party and not as a drawer. On January 27, 1977, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision affirming in toto the decision of the lower court. 11 Meanwhile, on February 2, 1971, pending the resolution of the said appeal, Mendoza entered into a compromise agreement with Tan wherein the latter acknowledged that all his claims against Mendoza had been settled and that by reason of said settlement both parties mutually waive, release and quit whatever claim, right or cause of action one may have against the other, with a provision that the said compromise agreement shall not in any way affect the right of Tan to enforce by appropriate action his claims against the Bernal spouses. 12 On February 25, 1977, Mendoza filed a motion for reconsideration praying that the decision of January 27, 1977 be set aside, principally anchored upon the ground that a compromise agreement was entered into between him and Tan which in effect released Mendoza from liability. Tan filed an opposition to this motion claiming that the compromise agreement is null and void as he was not properly represented by his counsel of record Atty. Quiogue, and was instead represented by a certain Atty. Laberinto, and principally because of the deed of assignment that he executed in favor of George Litton, Sr. alleging that with such, he has no more right to alienate said credit. While the case was still pending reconsideration by the respondent court, Tan, the assignor, died leaving no properties whatever to satisfy the claim of the estate of the late George Litton, Sr. In its Resolution dated August 30, 1977, approved the compromise agreement.
13

the respondent court set aside its decision and

As to the first ground invoked by Tan, now deceased, the respondent court ruled that the nonintervention of Tan's counsel of record in the compromise agreement does not affect the validity of the settlement on the ground that the client had an undoubted right to compromise a suit without the intervention of his lawyer, citing Aro vs. Nanawa. 14 As to the second ground, respondent court ruled as follows: ... it is relevant to note that Paragraph 1of the deed of assignment states that the cession,assignment, transfer, bond conveyance by Alfonso Tan was only by way of securing, or guaranteeing his obligation to GEORGE LITTON, SR. Hence, Alfonso Tan retained possession and dominion of the credit (Par. 2, Art. 2085, Civil Code). "Even considered as a litigations credit," which indeed characterized the claims herein of Alfonso Tan, such credit may be validly alienated by Tan (Art. 1634. Civil Code). Such alienation is subject to the remedies of Litton under Article 6 of the Civil Code, whereby the waiver, release, or quit-claim made by plaintiff-appellee Alfonso Tan in favor of defendantappellant Ciriaco B. Mendoza, if proven prejudicial to George Litton, Sr. as assignee under the deed of assignment, may entitle Litton to pursue his remedies against Tan. The alienation of a litigatious credit is further subject to the debtor's right of redemption under Article 1634 of the Civil Code. As mentioned earlier, the assignor Tan died pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration. The estate of George Litton, Sr., petitioner herein, as represented by James Litton, son of George Litton, Sr. and administrator 15 of the former's estate, is now appealing the said resolution to this Court as assignee of the amount sued in Civil Case No. Q-8303, in relation to Civil Case No. 56850. Before resolving the main issues aforementioned, the question of legal personality of herein petitioner to bring the instant petition for review, must be resolved. As a rule, the parties in an appeal through a review on certiorari are the same original parties to the case. 16 If after the rendition of judgment the original party dies, he should be substituted by his successor-in-interest. In this case, it is not disputed that no proper substitution of parties was done. This notwithstanding, the Court so holds that the same cannot and will not materially affect the legal right of herein petitioner in instituting the instant petition in view of the tenor of the deed of assignment, particularly paragraph two thereof 17 wherein the assignor, Tan, assumed the responsibility to prosecute the case and to turn over to the assignee whatever amounts may be realized in the prosecution of the suit. We note that private respondent moved for the dismissal of the appeal without notifying the estate of George Litton, Sr. whereas the former was fully aware of the fact that the said estate is an assignee of Tan's right in the case litigated. 18 Hence, if herein petitioner failed to observe the proper substitution of parties when Alfonso Tan died during the pendency of private respondent's motion for reconsideration, no one is to blame but private respondent himself. Moreover, the right of the petitioner to bring the present petition is well within the concept of a real party-in-interest in the subject matter of the action. Well-settled is the rule that a real partyin-interest is a party entitled to the avails of the suit or the party who would be injured by the judgment. 19 We see the petitioner well within the latter category. Hence, as the assignee and successor-in-interest of Tan, petitioner has the personality to bring

this petition in substitution of Tan. Now, the resolution of the main issues. The purpose of a compromise being to replace and terminate controverted claims, 20 courts encourage the same. A compromise once approved by final order of the court has the force of res judicata between parties and should not be disturbed except for vices of consent or forgery.
21

In this case, petitioner seeks to set aside the said compromise on the ground that previous thereto, Tan executed a deed of assignment in favor of George Litton, Sr. involving the same litigated credit. We rule for the petitioner. The fact that the deed of assignment was done by way of securing or guaranteeing Tan's obligation in favor of George Litton, Sr., as observed by the appellate court, will not in any way alter the resolution on the matter. The validity of the guaranty or pledge in favor of Litton has not been questioned. Our examination of the deed of assignment shows that it fulfills the requisites of a valid pledge or mortgage. 22 Although it is true that Tan may validly alienate the litigatious credit as ruled by the appellate court, citing Article 1634 of the Civil Code, said provision should not be taken to mean as a grant of an absolute right on the part of the assignor Tan to indiscriminately dispose of the thing or the right given as security. The Court rules that the said provision should be read in consonance with Article 2097 of the same code. 23 Although the pledgee or the assignee, Litton, Sr. did not ipso facto become the creditor of private respondent Mendoza, the pledge being valid, the incorporeal right assigned by Tan in favor of the former can only be alienated by the latter with due notice to and consent of Litton, Sr. or his duly authorized representative. To allow the assignor to dispose of or alienate the security without notice and consent of the assignee will render nugatory the very purpose of a pledge or an assignment of credit. Moreover, under Article 1634, 24 the debtor has a corresponding obligation to reimburse the assignee, Litton, Sr. for the price he paid or for the value given as consideration for the deed of assignment. Failing in this, the alienation of the litigated credit made by Tan in favor of private respondent by way of a compromise agreement does not bind the assignee, petitioner herein. Indeed, a painstaking review of the record of the case reveals that private respondent has, from the very beginning, been fully aware of the deed of assignment executed by Tan in favor of Litton, Sr. as said deed was duly submitted to Branch XI of the then Court of First Instance of Manila in Civil Case No. 56850 (in relation to Civil Case No. Q-8303) where C.B.M. Products is one of the defendants and the parties were notified through their counsel. 25 As earlier mentioned, private respondent herein is the president of C.B.M. Products, hence, his contention that he is not aware of the said deed of assignment deserves scant consideration from the Court. Petitioner pointed out at the same time that private respondent together with his counsel were served with a copy of the deed of assignment which allegation remains uncontroverted. Having such knowledge thereof, private respondent is estopped from entering into a compromise agreement involving the same litigated credit without notice to and consent of the assignee, petitioner herein. More so, in the light of the fact that no reimbursement has ever been made in favor of the assignee as required under Article 1634. Private respondent acted in bad faith and in connivance with assignor Tan so as to defraud the petitioner in entering into the compromise agreement. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed resolution of the respondent court dated August 30,1977 is hereby SET ASIDE, the said compromise agreement being null and void, and a new one is hereby rendered reinstating its decision dated January 27, 1977, affirming in toto the decision of the lower court. This decision is immediately executory. No motion for

extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration will be granted. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, Cruz and Grio-Aquino, JJ, concur.

G.R. No. L-53955 January 13, 1989 THE MANILA BANKING CORPORATION, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANASTACIO TEODORO, JR. and GRACE ANNA TEODORO, defendants-appellants. Formoso & Quimbo Law Office for plaintiff-appellee. Serafin P. Rivera for defendants-appellants.

BIDIN, J.: This is an appeal from the decision* of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XVII in Civil Case No. 78178 for collection of sum of money based on promissory notes executed by the defendants-appellants in favor of plaintiff-appellee bank. The dispositive portion of the appealed decision (Record on Appeal, p. 33) reads as follows: WHEREFORE judgment is hereby rendered (a) sentencing defendants, Anastacio Teodoro, Jr. and Grace Anna Teodoro jointly and severally, to pay plaintiff the sum of P15,037.11 plus 12% interest per annum from September 30, 1969 until fully paid, in payment of Promissory Notes No. 11487, plus the sum of P1,000.00 as attorney's fees; and (b) sentencing defendant Anastacio Teodoro, Jr. to pay plaintiff the sum of P8,934.74, plus interest at 12% per annum from September 30, 1969 until fully paid, in payment of Promissory Notes Nos. 11515 and 11699, plus the sum of P500.00 an attorney's fees. With Costs against defendants. The facts of the case as found by the trial court are as follows: On April 25, 1966, defendants, together with Anastacio Teodoro, Sr., jointly and severally, executed in favor of plaintiff a Promissory Note (No. 11487) for the sum of P10,420.00 payable in 120 days, or on August 25, 1966, at 12% interest per annum. Defendants failed to pay the said amount inspire of repeated demands and the obligation as of September 30, 1969 stood at P 15,137.11 including accrued interest and service charge. On May 3, 1966 and June 20, 1966, defendants Anastacio Teodoro, Sr. (Father) and Anastacio Teodoro, Jr. (Son) executed in favor of plaintiff two Promissory Notes (Nos. 11515 and 11699) for P8,000.00 and P1,000.00 respectively, payable in 120 days at 12% interest per annum. Father and Son made a partial payment on the May 3, 1966 promissory Note but none on the

June 20, 1966 Promissory Note, leaving still an unpaid balance of P8,934.74 as of September 30, 1969 including accrued interest and service charge. The three Promissory Notes stipulated that any interest due if not paid at the end of every month shall be added to the total amount then due, the whole amount to bear interest at the rate of 12% per annum until fully paid; and in case of collection through an attorney-at-law, the makers shall, jointly and severally, pay 10% of the amount over-due as attorney's fees, which in no case shall be leas than P200.00. It appears that on January 24, 1964, the Son executed in favor of plaintiff a Deed of Assignment of Receivables from the Emergency Employment Administration in the sum of P44,635.00. The Deed of Assignment provided that it was for and in consideration of certain credits, loans, overdrafts and other credit accommodations extended to defendants as security for the payment of said sum and the interest thereon, and that defendants do hereby remise, release and quitclaim all its rights, title, and interest in and to the accounts receivables. Further. (1) The title and right of possession to said accounts receivable is to remain in the assignee, and it shall have the right to collect the same from the debtor, and whatsoever the Assignor does in connection with the collection of said accounts, it agrees to do as agent and representative of the Assignee and in trust for said Assignee ; xxx xxx xxx (6) The Assignor guarantees the existence and legality of said accounts receivable, and the due and punctual payment thereof unto the assignee, ... on demand, ... and further, that Assignor warrants the solvency and credit worthiness of each and every account. (7) The Assignor does hereby guarantee the payment when due on all sums payable under the contracts giving rise to the accounts receivable ... including reasonable attorney's fees in enforcing any rights against the debtors of the assigned accounts receivable and will pay upon demand, the entire unpaid balance of said contract in the event of non-payment by the said debtors of any monthly sum at its due date or of any other default by said debtors; xxx xxx xxx (9) ... This Assignment shall also stand as a continuing guarantee for any and all whatsoever there is or in the future there will be justly owing from the Assignor to the Assignee ... In their stipulations of Fact, it is admitted by the parties that plaintiff extended loans to defendants on the basis and by reason of certain contracts entered into by the defunct Emergency Employment Administration (EEA) with defendants for the fabrication of fishing boats, and that the Philippine Fisheries Commission succeeded the EEA after its abolition; that non-payment of the notes was due to the failure of the Commission to pay defendants after the latter had complied with their contractual obligations; and that the President of plaintiff Bank took steps to collect from the Commission, but no collection was effected. For failure of defendants to pay the sums due on the Promissory Note, this action was instituted on November 13, 1969, originally against the Father, Son, and the latter's wife. Because the Father died, however, during the pendency of the suit, the case as against him was dismiss under the provisions of Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. The action, then is against defendants Son and his wife for the collection of the sum of P 15,037.11 on Promissory Note No. 14487; and against defendant Son for the recovery of P 8,394.7.4 on Promissory Notes Nos. 11515 and 11699, plus interest on both amounts at 12% per annum from September 30, 1969 until fully paid, and 10% of the amounts due as attorney's fees.

Neither of the parties presented any testimonial evidence and submitted the case for decision based on their Stipulations of Fact and on then, documentary evidence. The issues, as defined by the parties are: (1) whether or not plaintiff claim is already considered paid by the Deed of Assign. judgment of Receivables by the Son; and (2) whether or not it is plaintiff who should directly sue the Philippine Fisheries Commission for collection.' (Record on Appeal, p. 29- 32). On April 17, 1972, the trial court rendered its judgment adverse to defendants. On June 8, 1972, defendants filed a motion for reconsideration (Record on Appeal, p. 33) which was denied by the trial court in its order of June 14, 1972 (Record on Appeal, p. 37). On June 23, 1972, defendants filed with the lower court their notice of appeal together with the appeal bond (Record on Appeal, p. 38). The record of appeal was forwarded to the Court of Appeals on August 22, 1972 (Record on Appeal, p. 42). In their appeal (Brief for the Appellants, Rollo, p. 12), appellants raised a single assignment of error, that is THAT THE DECISION IN QUESTION AMOUNTS TO A JUDICIAL REMAKING OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES, IN VIOLATION OF LAW; HENCE, TANTAMOUNT TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION. As the appeal involves a pure question of law, the Court of Appeals, in its resolution promulgated on March 6, 1980, certified the case to this Court (Rollo, p. 24). The record on Appeal was forwarded to this Court on March 31, 1980 (Rollo, p. 1). In the resolution of May 30, 1980, the First Division of this Court ordered that the case be docketed and declared submitted for decision (Rollo, p. 33). On March 7, 1988, considering the length of time that the case has been pending with the Court and to determine whether supervening events may have rendered the case moot and academic, the Court resolved (1) to require the parties to MOVE IN THE PREMISES within thirty days from notice, and in case they fail to make the proper manifestation within the required period, (2) to consider the case terminated and closed with the entry of judgment accordingly made thereon (Rollo, p. 40). On April 27, 1988, appellee moved for a resolution of the appeal review interposed by defendants-appellants (Rollo, p. 41). The major issues raised in this case are as follows: (1) whether or not the assignment of receivables has the effect of payment of all the loans contracted by appellants from appellee bank; and (2) whether or not appellee bank must first exhaust all legal remedies against the Philippine Fisheries Commission before it can proceed against appellants for collections of loan under the promissory notes which are plaintiffs bases in the action for collection in Civil Case No. 78178. Assignment of credit is an agreement by virtue of which the owner of a credit, known as the assignor, by a legal cause, such as sale, dation in payment, exchange or donation, and without the need of the consent of the debtor, transfers his credit and its accessory rights to another, known as the assignee, who acquires the power to enforce it to the same extent as the assignor could have enforced it against the debtor. ... It may be in the form of a sale, but at times it may constitute a dation in payment, such as when a debtor, in order to obtain a release from his debt, assigns to his creditor a credit he has against a third person, or it may constitute a donation as when it is by gratuitous title; or it may even be merely by way of guaranty, as when

the creditor gives as a collateral, to secure his own debt in favor of the assignee, without transmitting ownership. The character that it may assume determines its requisites and effects. its regulation, and the capacity of the parties to execute it; and in every case, the obligations between assignor and assignee will depend upon the judicial relation which is the basis of the assignment: (Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. 5, pp. 165-166). There is no question as to the validity of the assignment of receivables executed by appellants in favor of appellee bank. The issue is with regard to its legal effects. I It is evident that the assignment of receivables executed by appellants on January 24, 1964 did not transfer the ownership of the receivables to appellee bank and release appellants from their loans with the bank incurred under promissory notes Nos. 11487,11515 and 11699. The Deed of Assignment provided that it was for and in consideration of certain credits, loans, overdrafts, and their credit accommodations in the sum of P10,000.00 extended to appellants by appellee bank, and as security for the payment of said sum and the interest thereon; that appellants as assignors, remise, release, and quitclaim to assignee bank all their rights, title and interest in and to the accounts receivable assigned (lst paragraph). It was further stipulated that the assignment will also stand as a continuing guaranty for future loans of appellants to appellee bank and correspondingly the assignment shall also extend to all the accounts receivable; appellants shall also obtain in the future, until the consideration on the loans secured by appellants from appellee bank shall have been fully paid by them (No. 9). The position of appellants, however, is that the deed of assignment is a quitclaim in consideration of their indebtedness to appellee bank, not mere guaranty, in view of the following provisions of the deed of assignment: ... the Assignor do hereby remise, release and quit-claim unto said assignee all its rights, title and interest in the accounts receivable described hereunder. (Emphasis supplied by appellants, first par., Deed of Assignment). ... that the title and right of possession to said account receivable is to remain in said assignee and it shall have the right to collect directly from the debtor, and whatever the Assignor does in connection with the collection of said accounts, it agrees to do so as agent and representative of the Assignee and it trust for said Assignee ...(Ibid. par. 2 of Deed of Assignment).' (Record on Appeal, p. 27) The character of the transactions between the parties is not, however, determined by the language used in the document but by their intention. Thus, the Court, quoting from the American Jurisprudence (68 2d, Secured Transaction, Section 50) said: The characters of the transaction between the parties is to be determined by their intention, regardless of what language was used or what the form of the transfer was. If it was intended to secure the payment of money, it must be construed as a pledge. However, even though a transfer, if regarded by itself, appellate to have been absolute, its object and character might still be qualified and explained by a contemporaneous writing declaring it to have been a deposit of the property as collateral security. It has been Id that a transfer of property by the debtor to a creditor, even if sufficient on its farm to make an absolute conveyance, should be treated as a pledge if the debt continues in existence and is not discharged by the transfer, and that

accordingly, the use of the terms ordinarily exporting conveyance, of absolute ownership will not be given that effect in such a transaction if they are also commonly used in pledges and mortgages and therefore do not unqualifiedly indicate a transfer of absolute ownership, in the absence of clear and ambiguous language or other circumstances excluding an intent to pledge. (Lopez v. Court of Appeals, 114 SCRA 671 [1982]). Definitely, the assignment of the receivables did not result from a sale transaction. It cannot be said to have been constituted by virtue of a dation in payment for appellants' loans with the bank evidenced by promissory note Nos. 11487, 11515 and 11699 which are the subject of the suit for collection in Civil Case No. 78178. At the time the deed of assignment was executed, said loans were non-existent yet. The deed of assignment was executed on January 24, 1964 (Exh. "G"), while promissory note No. 11487 is dated April 25, 1966 (Exh. 'A), promissory note 11515, dated May 3, 1966 (Exh. 'B'), promissory note 11699, on June 20, 1966 (Exh. "C"). At most, it was a dation in payment for P10,000.00, the amount of credit from appellee bank indicated in the deed of assignment. At the time the assignment was executed, there was no obligation to be extinguished except the amount of P10,000.00. Moreover, in order that an obligation may be extinguished by another which substitutes the same, it is imperative that it be so declared in unequivocal terms, or that the old and the new obligations be on every point incompatible with each other (Article 1292, New Civil Code). Obviously, the deed of assignment was intended as collateral security for the bank loans of appellants, as a continuing guaranty for whatever sums would be owing by defendants to plaintiff, as stated in stipulation No. 9 of the deed. In case of doubt as to whether a transaction is a pledge or a dation in payment, the presumption is in favor of pledge, the latter being the lesser transmission of rights and interests (Lopez v. Court of Appeals, supra). In one case, the assignments of rights, title and interest of the defendant in the contracts of lease of two buildings as well as her rights, title and interest in the land on which the buildings were constructed to secure an overdraft from a bank amounting to P110,000.00 which was increased to P150,000.00, then to P165,000.00 was considered by the Court to be documents of mortgage contracts inasmuch as they were executed to guarantee the principal obligations of the defendant consisting of the overdrafts or the indebtedness resulting therefrom. The Court ruled that an assignment to guarantee an obligation is in effect a mortgage and not an absolute conveyance of title which confers ownership on the assignee (People's Bank & Trust Co. v. Odom, 64 Phil. 126 [1937]). II As to whether or not appellee bank must have to exhaust all legal remedies against the Philippine Fisheries Commission before it can proceed against appellants for collection of loans under their promissory notes, must also be answered in the negative. The obligation of appellants under the promissory notes not having been released by the assignment of receivables, appellants remain as the principal debtors of appellee bank rather than mere guarantors. The deed of assignment merely guarantees said obligations. That the guarantor cannot be compelled to pay the creditor unless the latter has exhausted all the property of the debtor, and has resorted to all the legal remedies against the debtor, under Article 2058 of the New Civil Code does not therefore apply to them. It is of course of the essence of a contract of pledge or mortgage that when the principal obligation becomes due, the things in which the pledge or mortgage consists may be alienated for the payment to the creditor (Article 2087, New Civil Code). In the instant case, appellants are both the principal debtors and the pledgors or mortgagors. Resort to one is, therefore, resort to the other.

Appellee bank did try to collect on the pledged receivables. As the Emergency Employment Agency (EEA) which issued the receivables had been abolished, the collection had to be coursed through the Office of the President which disapproved the same (Record on Appeal, p. 16). The receivable became virtually worthless leaving appellants' loans from appellee bank unsecured. It is but proper that after their repeated demands made on appellants for the settlement of their obligations, appellee bank should proceed against appellants. It would be an exercise in futility to proceed against a defunct office for the collection of the receivables pledged. WHEREFORE, the appeal is Dismissed for lack of merit and the appealed decision of the trial court is affirmed in toto. SO ORDERED. Fernan, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr. and Cortes, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

FELICIANO, J., concurring: I quite agree with the general reasoning of and the results reached by my distinguished brother Bidin in respect of both of the principal issues he addressed in his opinion. I would merely wish to add a few lines in respect of the point made by Bidin, J., that "the character of the transactions between the parties is not, however, determined by the language used in the document but by their intention.' This statement is basically not exceptionable, so far as it goes. It might, however, be borne in mind that the intent of the parties to the transaction is to be determined in the first instance, by the very language which they use. The deed of assignment contains language which suggest that the parties intended to effect a complete alienation of title to and rights over the receivables which are the subject of the assignment. This language is comprised of works like "remise," "release and quitclaim" and clauses like "the title and right of possession to said accounts receivable is to remain in said assignee" who "shall have the right to collect directly from the debtor." The same intent is also suggested by the use of the words "agent and representative of the assignee" in reffering to the assignor. The point that appears to me to be worth making is that although in its form, the deed of assignment of receivables partakes of the nature of a complete alienation of the receivables assigned, such form should be taken in conjunction with, and indeed must be qualified and controlled by, other language showing an intent of the parties that title to the receivables shall pass to the assignee for the limited purpose of securing another, principal; obligation owed by the assignor to the assignee. Title moves from assignor to asignee but that title is defeasible being designed to collateralize the principal obligation. Operationally, what this means is that the assignee is burdened with an obligation of taking the proceeds of the receivables assigned and applying such proceeds to the satisfaction of the principal obligation and returning any balance remaining thereafter to the assignor. The parties gave the deed of assignment the form of an absolute conveyance of title over the receivables assigned, essentially for the convenience of the assignee. Without such formally

unlimited conveyance of title, the assignee would have to treat the deed of assignment as no more than a deed of pledge or of chattel mortgage. In other words, in such hypothetical case, should the assignee seek to realize upon the security given to him through the deed of assignment (which would then have to comply with the documentation and registration requirements of a pledge or chattel mortgage), the assignee would have to foreclose upon the securities or credits assigned and place them on public sale and there acquire the same. It should be recalled that under the principle which forbids a pactum commisorium Article 2088, Civil Code), a mortgagee or pledgee is prohibited from simply taking and appropriating the personal property turned over to him as security for the payment of a principal obligation. A deed of assignment by way of security avoids the necessity of a public sale impose by the rule on pactum commisorium, by in effect placing the sale of the collateral up front. (Emphasis supplied) The foregoing is applicable where, as in the present instance, the deed of assignment of receivables combines elements of both a complete or absolute alienation of the credits being assigned and a security arrangement to assure payment of a principal obligation. Where the second element is absent, that is, where there is nothing to indicate that the parties intended the deed of assignment to function as a security device, it would of course follow that the simple absolute conveyance embodied in the deed of assignment would be operative; the assignment would constitute essentially a mode of payment or dacion en pago. Put a little differently, in order that a deed of assignment of receivables which is in form an absolute conveyance of title to the credits being assigned, may be qualified and treated as a security arrangement, language to such effect must be found in the document itself and that language, precisely, is embodied in the deed of assignment in the instant case. Finally, it might be noted that that deed simply follows a form in standard use in commercial banking.

G.R. No. L-78519 September 26, 1989 VICTORIA YAU CHU, assisted by her husband MICHAEL CHU, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, FAMILY SAVINGS BANK and/or CAMS TRADING ENTERPRISES, INC., respondents. Francisco A. Lara, Jr. for petitioner. D. T. Ramos and Associates for respondent Family Savings Bank. Romulo T. Santos for respondent CAMS Trading.

GRINO-AQUINO, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari to annul and set aside the Court of Appeals' decision dated October 28, 1986 in CA-G.R. CV No. 03269 which affirmed the decision of the trial court in favor of the private respondents in an action to recover the petitioners' time deposits in the respondent Family Savings Bank.

Since 1980, the petitioner, Victoria Yau Chu, had been purchasing cement on credit from CAMS Trading Enterprises, Inc. (hereafter "CAMS Trading" for brevity). To guaranty payment for her cement withdrawals, she executed in favor of Cams Trading deeds of assignment of her time deposits in the total sum of P320,000 in the Family Savings Bank (hereafter the Bank). Except for the serial numbers and the dates of the time deposit certificates, the deeds of assignment, which were prepared by her own lawyer, uniformly provided ... That the assignment serves as a collateral or guarantee for the payment of my obligation with the said CAMS TRADING ENTERPRISES, INC. on account of my cement withdrawal from said company, per separate contract executed between us. On July 24,1980, Cams Trading notified the Bank that Mrs. Chu had an unpaid account with it in the sum of P314,639.75. It asked that it be allowed to encash the time deposit certificates which had been assigned to it by Mrs. Chu. It submitted to the Bank a letter dated July 18, 1980 of Mrs. Chu admitting that her outstanding account with Cams Trading was P404,500. After verbally advising Mrs. Chu of the assignee's request to encash her time deposit certificates and obtaining her verbal conformity thereto, the Bank agreed to encash the certificates.It delivered to Cams Trading the sum of P283,737.75 only, as one time deposit certificate (No. 0048120954) lacked the proper signatures. Upon being informed of the encashment, Mrs. Chu demanded from the Bank and Cams Trading that her time deposit be restored. When neither complied, she filed a complaint to recover the sum of P283,737.75 from them. The case was docketed in the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Metro Manila (then CFI of Rizal, Pasig Branch XIX), as Civil Case No. 38861. In a decision dated December 12, 1983, the trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. Chu appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 03269) which affirmed the dismissal of her complaint. In this petition for review, she alleges that the Court of Appeals erred: 1. In not annulling the encashment of her time deposit certificates as a pactum commissorium; and 2. In not finding that the obligations secured by her time deposits had already been paid. We find no merit in the petition for review. The Court of Appeals found that the deeds of assignment were contracts of pledge, but, as the collateral was also money or an exchange of "peso for peso," the provision in Article 2112 of the Civil Code for the sale of the thing pledged at public auction to convert it into money to satisfy the pledgor's obligation, did not have to be followed. All that had to be done to convert the pledgor's time deposit certificates into cash was to present them to the bank for encashment after due notice to the debtor. The encashment of the deposit certificates was not a pacto commissorio which is prohibited under Art. 2088 of the Civil Code. A pacto commissorio is a provision for the automatic appropriation of the pledged or mortgaged property by the creditor in payment of the loan upon its maturity. The prohibition against a pacto commissorio is intended to protect the obligor, pledgor, or mortgagor against being overreached by his creditor who holds a pledge or mortgage over property whose value is much more than the debt. Where, as in this case, the security for the debt is also money deposited in a bank, the amount of which is even less than the debt, it was not illegal for the creditor to encash the time deposit certificates to pay the debtors' overdue obligation, with the latter's consent.

Whether the debt had already been paid as now alleged by the debtor, is a factual question which the Court of Appeals found not to have been proven for the evidence which the debtor sought to present on appeal, were receipts for payments made prior to July 18, 1980. Since the petitioner signed on July 18, 1980 a letter admitting her indebtedness to be in the sum of P404,500, and there is no proof of payment made by her thereafter to reduce or extinguish her debt, the application of her time deposits, which she had assigned to the creditor to secure the payment of her debt, was proper. The Court of Appeals did not commit a reversible error in holding that it was so. WHEREFORE, the petition for review is denied. Costs against the appellant. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, Cruz and Medialdea, JJ., concur. Gancayco, J., took no part.

G.R. No. 156132

February 6, 2007

CITIBANK, N.A. (Formerly First National City Bank) and INVESTORS FINANCE CORPORATION, doing business under the name and style of FNCB Finance, Petitioners, vs. MODESTA R. SABENIANO, Respondent. RESOLUTION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: On 16 October 2006, this Court promulgated its Decision 1 in the above-entitled case, the dispositive portion of which reads IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant Petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 51930, dated 26 March 2002, as already modified by its Resolution, dated 20 November 2002, is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION, as follows 1. PNs No. 23356 and 23357 are DECLARED subsisting and outstanding. Petitioner Citibank is ORDERED to return to respondent the principal amounts of the said PNs, amounting to Three Hundred Eighteen Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety-Seven Pesos and Thirty-Four Centavos (P318,897.34) and Two Hundred Three Thousand One Hundred Fifty Pesos (P203,150.00), respectively, plus the stipulated interest of Fourteen and a half percent (14.5%) per annum, beginning 17 March 1977; 2. The remittance of One Hundred Forty-Nine Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Two US Dollars and Ninety-Nine Cents (US$149,632.99) from respondents Citibank-Geneva accounts to petitioner Citibank in Manila, and the application of the same against respondents outstanding loans with the latter, is DECLARED illegal, null and void. Petitioner Citibank is ORDERED to

refund to respondent the said amount, or its equivalent in Philippine currency using the exchange rate at the time of payment, plus the stipulated interest for each of the fiduciary placements and current accounts involved, beginning 26 October 1979; 3. Petitioner Citibank is ORDERED to pay respondent moral damages in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00); exemplary damages in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P250,000.00); and attorneys fees in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00); and 4. Respondent is ORDERED to pay petitioner Citibank the balance of her outstanding loans, which, from the respective dates of their maturity to 5 September 1979, was computed to be in the sum of One Million Sixty-Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Forty-Seven Pesos and Forty Centavos (P1,069,847.40), inclusive of interest. These outstanding loans shall continue to earn interest, at the rates stipulated in the corresponding PNs, from 5 September 1979 until payment thereof. Subsequent thereto, respondent Modesta R. Sabeniano filed an Urgent Motion to Clarify and/or Confirm Decision with Notice of Judgment on 20 October 2006; while, petitioners Citibank, N.A. and FNCB Finance2 filed their Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the foregoing Decision on 6 November 2006. The facts of the case, as determined by this Court in its Decision, may be summarized as follows. Respondent was a client of petitioners. She had several deposits and market placements with petitioners, among which were her savings account with the local branch of petitioner Citibank (Citibank-Manila3 ); money market placements with petitioner FNCB Finance; and dollar accounts with the Geneva branch of petitioner Citibank (Citibank-Geneva). At the same time, respondent had outstanding loans with petitioner Citibank, incurred at Citibank-Manila, the principal amounts aggregating to P1,920,000.00, all of which had become due and demandable by May 1979. Despite repeated demands by petitioner Citibank, respondent failed to pay her outstanding loans. Thus, petitioner Citibank used respondents deposits and money market placements to off-set and liquidate her outstanding obligations, as follows Respondents outstanding obligation (principal and interest as of 26 October 1979) Les Proceeds from respondents money market placements with petitioner s: FNCB Finance (principal and interest as of 5 September 1979) Deposits in respondents bank accounts with petitioner Citibank Proceeds of respondents money market placements and dollar accounts with Citibank-Geneva (peso equivalent as of 26 October 1979) Balance of respondents obligation P 2,156,940.58 (1,022,916.66) (31,079.14) (1,102,944.78)

P 0.00 Respondent, however, denied having any outstanding loans with petitioner Citibank. She likewise denied that she was duly informed of the off-setting or compensation thereof made by petitioner Citibank using her deposits and money market placements with petitioners. Hence, respondent sought to recover her deposits and money market placements. Respondent instituted a complaint for "Accounting, Sum of Money and Damages" against petitioners, docketed as Civil Case No. 11336, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. After trial proper, which lasted for a decade, the RTC rendered a Decision 4 on 24 August 1995, the dispositive portion of which reads WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, decision is hereby rendered as follows:

(1) Declaring as illegal, null and void the setoff effected by the defendant Bank [petitioner Citibank] of plaintiffs [respondent Sabeniano] dollar deposit with Citibank, Switzerland, in the amount of US$149,632.99, and ordering the said defendant [petitioner Citibank] to refund the said amount to the plaintiff with legal interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum, compounded yearly, from 31 October 1979 until fully paid, or its peso equivalent at the time of payment; (2) Declaring the plaintiff [respondent Sabeniano] indebted to the defendant Bank [petitioner Citibank] in the amount of P1,069,847.40 as of 5 September 1979 and ordering the plaintiff [respondent Sabeniano] to pay said amount, however, there shall be no interest and penalty charges from the time the illegal setoff was effected on 31 October 1979; (3) Dismissing all other claims and counterclaims interposed by the parties against each other. Costs against the defendant Bank. All the parties appealed the afore-mentioned RTC Decision to the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 51930. On 26 March 2002, the appellate court promulgated its Decision, 5 ruling entirely in favor of respondent, to wit Wherefore, premises considered, the assailed 24 August 1995 Decision of the court a quo is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, as follows: 1. Declaring as illegal, null and void the set-off effected by the defendant-appellant Bank of the plaintiff-appellants dollar deposit with Citibank, Switzerland, in the amount of US$149,632.99, and ordering defendant-appellant Citibank to refund the said amount to the plaintiff-appellant with legal interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum, compounded yearly, from 31 October 1979 until fully paid, or its peso equivalent at the time of payment; 2. As defendant-appellant Citibank failed to establish by competent evidence the alleged indebtedness of plaintiff-appellant, the set-off of P1,069,847.40 in the account of Ms. Sabeniano is hereby declared as without legal and factual basis; 3. As defendants-appellants failed to account the following plaintiff-appellants money market placements, savings account and current accounts, the former is hereby ordered to return the same, in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed upon by the contending parties as evidenced by the certificates of investments, to wit: (i) Citibank NNPN Serial No. 023356 (Cancels and Supersedes NNPN No. 22526) issued on 17 March 1977, P318,897.34 with 14.50% interest p.a.; (ii) Citibank NNPN Serial No. 23357 (Cancels and Supersedes NNPN No. 22528) issued on 17 March 1977, P203,150.00 with 14.50 interest p.a.; (iii) FNCB NNPN Serial No. 05757 (Cancels and Supersedes NNPN No. 04952), issued on 02 June 1977, P500,000.00 with 17% interest p.a.; (iv) FNCB NNPN Serial No. 05758 (Cancels and Supersedes NNPN No. 04962), issued on 02 June 1977, P500,000.00 with 17% interest per annum; (v) The Two Million (P2,000,000.00) money market placements of Ms. Sabeniano with the Ayala Investment & Development Corporation (AIDC) with legal interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum compounded yearly, from 30 September 1976 until fully paid;

4. Ordering defendants-appellants to jointly and severally pay the plaintiff-appellant the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00) by way of moral damages, FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00) as exemplary damages, and ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00) as attorneys fees. Acting on petitioners Motion for Partial Reconsideration, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution,6 dated 20 November 2002, modifying its earlier Decision, thus WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED as Sub-paragraph (V) paragraph 3 of the assailed Decisions dispositive portion is hereby ordered DELETED. The challenged 26 March 2002 Decision of the Court is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Since the Court of Appeals Decision, dated 26 March 2002, as modified by the Resolution of the same court, dated 20 November 2002, was still principally in favor of respondent, petitioners filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. After giving due course to the instant Petition, this Court promulgated on 16 October 2006 its Decision, now subject of petitioners Motion for Partial Reconsideration.1awphi1.net Among the numerous grounds raised by petitioners in their Motion for Partial Reconsideration, this Court shall address and discuss herein only particular points that had not been considered or discussed in its Decision. Even in consideration of these points though, this Court remains unconvinced that it should modify or reverse in any way its disposition of the case in its earlier Decision. As to the off-setting or compensation of respondents outstanding loan balance with her dollar deposits in Citibank-Geneva Petitioners take exception to the following findings made by this Court in its Decision, dated 16 October 2006, disallowing the off-setting or compensation of the balance of resp ondents outstanding loans using her dollar deposits in Citibank-Geneva Without the Declaration of Pledge, petitioner Citibank had no authority to demand the remittance of respondents dollar accounts with Citibank-Geneva and to apply them to her outstanding loans. It cannot effect legal compensation under Article 1278 of the Civil Code since, petitioner Citibank itself admitted that Citibank-Geneva is a distinct and separate entity. As for the dollar accounts, respondent was the creditor and Citibank-Geneva is the debtor; and as for the outstanding loans, petitioner Citibank was the creditor and respondent was the debtor. The parties in these transactions were evidently not the principal creditor of each other. Petitioners maintain that respondents Declaration of Pledge, by virtue of which she supposedly assigned her dollar accounts with Citibank-Geneva as security for her loans with petitioner Citibank, is authentic and, thus, valid and binding upon respondent. Alternatively, petitioners aver that even without said Declaration of Pledge, the off-setting or compensation made by petitioner Citibank using respondents dollar accounts with Citibank -Geneva to liquidate the balance of her outstanding loans with Citibank-Manila was expressly authorized by respondent herself in the promissory notes (PNs) she signed for her loans, as well as sanctioned by Articles 1278 to 1290 of the Civil Code. This alternative argument is anchored on the premise that all branches of petitioner Citibank in the Philippines and abroad are part of a single worldwide corporate entity and share the same juridical personality. In connection therewith, petitioners deny that they ever admitted that Citibank-Manila and Citibank-Geneva are distinct and separate entities.

Petitioners call the attention of this Court to the following provision found in all of the PNs 7 executed by respondent for her loans At or after the maturity of this note, or when same becomes due under any of the provisions hereof, any money, stocks, bonds, or other property of any kind whatsoever, on deposit or otherwise, to the credit of the undersigned on the books of CITIBANK, N.A. in transit or in their possession, may without notice be applied at the discretion of the said bank to the full or partial payment of this note. It is the petitioners contention that the term "Citibank, N.A." used therein should be deemed to refer to all branches of petitioner Citibank in the Philippines and abroad; thus, giving petitioner Citibank the authority to apply as payment for the P Ns even respondents dollar accounts with Citibank-Geneva. Still proceeding from the premise that all branches of petitioner Citibank should be considered as a single entity, then it should not matter that the respondent obtained the loans from Citibank-Manila and her deposits were with Citibank-Geneva. Respondent should be considered the debtor (for the loans) and creditor (for her deposits) of the same entity, petitioner Citibank. Since petitioner Citibank and respondent were principal creditors of each other, in compliance with the requirements under Article 1279 of the Civil Code, 8 then the former could have very well used off-setting or compensation to extinguish the parties obligations to one another. And even without the PNs, off-setting or compensation was still authorized because according to Article 1286 of the Civil Code, "Compensation takes place by operation of law, even though the debts may be payable at different places, but there shall be an indemnity for expenses of exchange or transportation to the place of payment." Pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 8791, otherwise known as the General Banking Law of 2000, governing bank branches are reproduced below SEC. 20. Bank Branches. Universal or commercial banks may open branches or other offices within or outside the Philippines upon prior approval of the Bangko Sentral. Branching by all other banks shall be governed by pertinent laws. A bank may, subject to prior approval of the Monetary Board, use any or all of its branches as outlets for the presentation and/or sale of the financial products of its allied undertaking or its investment house units. A bank authorized to establish branches or other offices shall be responsible for all business conducted in such branches and offices to the same extent and in the same manner as though such business had all been conducted in the head office. A bank and its branches and offices shall be treated as one unit. xxxx SEC. 72. Transacting Business in the Philippines. The entry of foreign banks in the Philippines through the establishment of branches shall be governed by the provisions of the Foreign Banks Liberalization Act. The conduct of offshore banking business in the Philippines shall be governed by the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1034, otherwise known as the "Offshore Banking System Decree." xxxx SEC. 74. Local Branches of Foreign Banks. In case of a foreign bank which has more than one (1) branch in the Philippines, all such branches shall be treated as one (1) unit for the

purpose of this Act, and all references to the Philippine branches of foreign banks shall be held to refer to such units. SEC. 75. Head Office Guarantee. In order to provide effective protection of the interests of the depositors and other creditors of Philippine branches of a foreign bank, the head office of such branches shall fully guarantee the prompt payment of all liabilities of its Philippine branch. Residents and citizens of the Philippines who are creditors of a branch in the Philippines of a foreign bank shall have preferential rights to the assets of such branch in accordance with existing laws. Republic Act No. 7721, otherwise known as the Foreign Banks Liberalization Law, lays down the policies and regulations specifically concerning the establishment and operation of local branches of foreign banks. Relevant provisions of the said statute read Sec. 2. Modes of Entry. - The Monetary Board may authorize foreign banks to operate in the Philippine banking system through any of the following modes of entry: (i) by acquiring, purchasing or owning up to sixty percent (60%) of the voting stock of an existing bank; (ii) by investing in up to sixty percent (60%) of the voting stock of a new banking subsidiary incorporated under the laws of the Philippines; or (iii) by establishing branches with full banking authority: Provided, That a foreign bank may avail itself of only one (1) mode of entry: Provided, further, That a foreign bank or a Philippine corporation may own up to a sixty percent (60%) of the voting stock of only one (1) domestic bank or new banking subsidiary. Sec. 5. Head Office Guarantee. - The head office of foreign bank branches shall guarantee prompt payment of all liabilities of its Philippine branches. It is true that the afore-quoted Section 20 of the General Banking Law of 2000 expressly states that the bank and its branches shall be treated as one unit. It should be pointed out, however, that the said provision applies to a universal9 or commercial bank,10 duly established and organized as a Philippine corporation in accordance with Section 8 of the same statute, 11 and authorized to establish branches within or outside the Philippines. The General Banking Law of 2000, however, does not make the same categorical statement as regards to foreign banks and their branches in the Philippines. What Section 74 of the said law provides is that in case of a foreign bank with several branches in the country, all such branches shall be treated as one unit. As to the relations between the local branches of a foreign bank and its head office, Section 75 of the General Banking Law of 2000 and Section 5 of the Foreign Banks Liberalization Law provide for a "Home Office Guarantee," in which the head office of the foreign bank shall guarantee prompt payment of all liabilities of its Philippine branches. While the Home Office Guarantee is in accord with the principle that these local branches, together with its head office, constitute but one legal entity, it does not necessarily support the view that said principle is true and applicable in all circumstances. The Home Office Guarantee is included in Philippine statutes clearly for the protection of the interests of the depositors and other creditors of the local branches of a foreign bank. 12 Since the head office of the bank is located in another country or state, such a guarantee is necessary so as to bring the head office within Philippine jurisdiction, and to hold the same answerable for the liabilities of its Philippine branches. Hence, the principle of the singular identity of that the local branches and the head office of a foreign bank are more often invoked by the clients in order to establish the accountability of the head office for the liabilities of its local branches. It is under such attendant circumstances in which the American authorities and jurisprudence presented by petitioners in their Motion for Partial Reconsideration were rendered.

Now the question that remains to be answered is whether the foreign bank can use the principle for a reverse purpose, in order to extend the liability of a client to the foreign banks Philippine branch to its head office, as well as to its branches in other countries. Thus, if a client obtains a loan from the foreign banks Philippine branch, does it absolutely and automatically make the client a debtor, not just of the Philippine branch, but also of the head office and all other branches of the foreign bank around the world? This Court rules in the negative. There being a dearth of Philippine authorities and jurisprudence on the matter, this Court, just as what petitioners have done, turns to American authorities and jurisprudence. American authorities and jurisprudence are significant herein considering that the head office of petitioner Citibank is located in New York, United States of America (U.S.A.). Unlike Philippine statutes, the American legislation explicitly defines the relations among foreign branches of an American bank. Section 25 of the United States Federal Reserve Act 13 states that Every national banking association operating foreign branches shall conduct the accounts of each foreign branch independently of the accounts of other foreign branches established by it and of its home office, and shall at the end of each fiscal period transfer to its general ledger the profit or loss accrued at each branch as a separate item. Contrary to petitioners assertion that the accounts of Citibank-Manila and Citibank-Geneva should be deemed as a single account under its head office, the foregoing provision mandates that the accounts of foreign branches of an American bank shall be conducted independently of each other. Since the head office of petitioner Citibank is in the U.S.A., then it is bound to treat its foreign branches in accordance with the said provision. It is only at the end of its fiscal period that the bank is required to transfer to its general ledger the profit or loss accrued at each branch, but still reporting it as a separate item. It is by virtue of this provision that the Circuit Court of Appeals of New York declared in Pan-American Bank and Trust Co. v. National City Bank of New York14 that a branch is not merely a tellers window; it is a separate business entity. The circumstances in the case of McGrath v. Agency of Chartered Bank of India, Australia & China15 are closest to the one at bar. In said case, the Chartered Bank had branches in several countries, including one in Hamburg, Germany and another in New York, U.S.A., and yet another in London, United Kingdom. The New York branch entered in its books credit in favor of four German firms. Said credit represents collections made from bills of exchange delivered by the four German firms. The same four German firms subsequently became indebted to the Hamburg branch. The London branch then requested for the transfer of the credit in the name of the German firms from the New York branch so as to be applied or setoff against the indebtedness of the same firms to the Hamburg branch. One of the question brought before the U.S. District Court of New York was "whether or not the debts and the alleged setoffs thereto are mutual," which could be answered by determining first whether the New York and Hamburg branches of Chartered Bank are individual business entities or are one and the same entity. In denying the right of the Hamburg branch to setoff, the U.S. District Court ratiocinated that The structure of international banking houses such as Chartered bank defies one rigorous description. Suffice it to say for present analysis, branches or agencies of an international bank have been held to be independent entities for a variety of purposes (a) deposits payable only at branch where made; Mutaugh v. Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd., 1933, 149 Misc. 693, 269 N.Y.S. 65; Bluebird Undergarment Corp. v. Gomez, 1931, 139 Misc. 742, 249 N.Y.S. 319; (b) checks need be honored only when drawn on branch where deposited; Chrzanowska v. Corn Exchange Bank, 1916, 173 App. Div. 285, 159 N.Y.S. 385, affirmed 1919, 225 N.Y. 728, 122 N.E. 877; subpoena duces tecum on foreign banks record barred; In re Harris,

D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1939, 27 F. Supp. 480; (d) a foreign branch separate for collection of forwarded paper; Pan-American Bank and Trust Company v. National City Bank of New York , 2 Cir., 1925, 6 F. 2d 762, certiorari denied 1925, 269 U.S. 554, 46 S. Ct. 18, 70 L. Ed. 408. Thus in law there is nothing innately unitary about the organization of international banking institutions. Defendant, upon its oral argument and in its brief, relies heavily on Sokoloff v. National City Bank of New York, 1928, 250 N.Y. 69, 164 N.E. 745, as authority for the proposition that Chartered Bank, not the Hamburg or New York Agency, is ultimately responsible for the amounts owing its German customers and, conversely, it is to Chartered Bank that the German firms owe their obligations. The Sokoloff case, aside from its violently different fact situation, is centered on the legal problem of default of payment and consequent breach of contract by a branch bank. It does not stand for the principle that in every instance an international bank with branches is but one legal entity for all purposes. The defendant concedes in its brief (p. 15) that there are purposes for which the various agencies and branches of Chartered Bank may be treated in law as separate entities. I fail to see the applicability of Sokoloff either as a guide to or authority for the resolution of this problem. The facts before me and the cases catalogued supra lend weight to the view that we are dealing here with Agencies independent of one another. xxxx I hold that for instant purposes the Hamburg Agency and defendant were independent business entities, and the attempted setoff may not be utilized by defendant against its debt to the German firms obligated to the Hamburg Agency. Going back to the instant Petition, although this Court concedes that all the Philippine branches of petitioner Citibank should be treated as one unit with its head office, it cannot be persuaded to declare that these Philippine branches are likewise a single unit with the Geneva branch. It would be stretching the principle way beyond its intended purpose. Therefore, this Court maintains its original position in the Decision that the off-setting or compensation of respondents loans with Citibank-Manila using her dollar accounts with Citibank-Geneva cannot be effected. The parties cannot be considered principal creditor of the other. As for the dollar accounts, respondent was the creditor and Citibank-Geneva was the debtor; and as for the outstanding loans, petitioner Citibank, particularly Citibank-Manila, was the creditor and respondent was the debtor. Since legal compensation was not possible, petitioner Citibank could only use respondents dollar accounts with Citibank -Geneva to liquidate her loans if she had expressly authorized it to do so by contract. Respondent cannot be deemed to have authorized the use of her dollar deposits with CitibankGeneva to liquidate her loans with petitioner Citibank when she signed the PNs 16 for her loans which all contained the provision that At or after the maturity of this note, or when same becomes due under any of the provisions hereof, any money, stocks, bonds, or other property of any kind whatsoever, on deposit or otherwise, to the credit of the undersigned on the books of CITIBANK, N.A. in transit or in their possession, may without notice be applied at the discretion of the said bank to the full or partial payment of this note. As has been established in the preceding discussion, "Citibank, N.A." can only refer to the local branches of petitioner Citibank together with its head office. Unless there is any showing that respondent understood and expressly agreed to a more far-reaching interpretation, the reference to Citibank, N.A. cannot be extended to all other branches of petitioner Citibank all

over the world. Although theoretically, books of the branches form part of the books of the head office, operationally and practically, each branch maintains its own books which shall only be later integrated and balanced with the books of the head office. Thus, it is very possible to identify and segregate the books of the Philippine branches of petitioner Citibank from those of Citibank-Geneva, and to limit the authority granted for application as payment of the PNs to respondents deposits in the books of the former. Moreover, the PNs can be considered a contract of adhesion, the PNs being in standard printed form prepared by petitioner Citibank. Generally, stipulations in a contract come about after deliberate drafting by the parties thereto, there are certain contracts almost all the provisions of which have been drafted only by one party, usually a corporation. Such contracts are called contracts of adhesion, because the only participation of the party is the affixing of his signature or his "adhesion" thereto. This being the case, the terms of such contract are to be construed strictly against the party which prepared it.17 As for the supposed Declaration of Pledge of respondents dollar accounts with Citibank Geneva as security for the loans, this Court stands firm on its ruling that the non-production thereof is fatal to petitioners cause in light of respondents claim that her signature on such document was a forgery. It bears to note that the original of the Declaration of Pledge is with Citibank-Geneva, a branch of petitioner Citibank. As between respondent and petitioner Citibank, the latter has better access to the document. The constant excuse forwarded by petitioner Citibank that Citibank-Geneva refused to return possession of the original Declaration of Pledge to Citibank-Manila only supports this Courts finding in the preceding paragraphs that the two branches are actually operating separately and independently of each other. Further, petitioners keep playing up the fact that respondent, at the beginning of the trial, refused to give her specimen signatures to help establish whether her signature on the Declaration of Pledge was indeed forged. Petitioners seem to forget that subsequently, respondent, on advice of her new counsel, already offered to cooperate in whatever manner so as to bring the original Declaration of Pledge before the RTC for inspection. The exchange of the counsels for the opposing sides during the hearing on 24 July 1991 before the RTC reveals the apparent willingness of respondents counsel to undertake whatever course of action necessary for the production of the contested document, and the evasive, non-committal, and uncooperative attitude of petitioners counsel.18 Lastly, this Courts ruling striking down the Declaration of Pledge is not entirely based on respondents allegation of forgery. In its Decision, this Court already extensively discussed why it found the said Declaration of Pledge highly suspicious and irregular, to wit First of all, it escapes this Court why petitioner Citibank took care to have the Deeds of Assignment of the PNs notarized, yet left the Declaration of Pledge unnotarized. This Court would think that petitioner Citibank would take greater cautionary measures with the preparation and execution of the Declaration of Pledge because it involved respondents "all present and future fiduciary placements" with a Citibank branch in another country, specifically, in Geneva, Switzerland. While there is no express legal requirement that the Declaration of Pledge had to be notarized to be effective, even so, it could not enjoy the same prima facie presumption of due execution that is extended to notarized documents, and petitioner Citibank must discharge the burden of proving due execution and authenticity of the Declaration of Pledge. Second, petitioner Citibank was unable to establish the date when the Declaration of Pledge was actually executed. The photocopy of the Declaration of Pledge submitted by petitioner Citibank before the RTC was undated. It presented only a photocopy of the pledge because it already forwarded the original copy thereof to Citibank-Geneva when it requested for the remittance of respondents dollar accounts pursuant thereto. Respondent, on the other hand,

was able to secure a copy of the Declaration of Pledge, certified by an officer of CitibankGeneva, which bore the date 24 September 1979. Respondent, however, presented her passport and plane tickets to prove that she was out of the country on the said date and could not have signed the pledge. Petitioner Citibank insisted that the pledge was signed before 24 September 1979, but could not provide an explanation as to how and why the said date was written on the pledge. Although Mr. Tan testified that the Declaration of Pledge was signed by respondent personally before him, he could not give the exact date when the said signing took place. It is important to note that the copy of the Declaration of Pledge submitted by the respondent to the RTC was certified by an officer of Citibank-Geneva, which had possession of the original copy of the pledge. It is dated 24 September 1979, and this Court shall abide by the presumption that the written document is truly dated. Since it is undeniable that respondent was out of the country on 24 September 1979, then she could not have executed the pledge on the said date. Third, the Declaration of Pledge was irregularly filled-out. The pledge was in a standard printed form. It was constituted in favor of Citibank, N.A., otherwise referred to therein as the Bank. It should be noted, however, that in the space which should have named the pledgor, the name of petitioner Citibank was typewritten, to wit The pledge right herewith constituted shall secure all claims which the Bank now has or in the future acquires against Citibank, N.A., Manila (full name and address of the Debtor), regardless of the legal cause or the transaction (for example current account, securities transactions, collections, credits, payments, documentary credits and collections) which gives rise thereto, and including principal, all contractual and penalty interest, commissions, charges, and costs. The pledge, therefore, made no sense, the pledgor and pledgee being the same entity. Was a mistake made by whoever filled-out the form? Yes, it could be a possibility. Nonetheless, considering the value of such a document, the mistake as to a significant detail in the pledge could only be committed with gross carelessness on the part of petitioner Citibank, and raised serious doubts as to the authenticity and due execution of the same. The Declaration of Pledge had passed through the hands of several bank officers in the country and abroad, yet, surprisingly and implausibly, no one noticed such a glaring mistake. Lastly, respondent denied that it was her signature on the Declaration of Pledge. She claimed that the signature was a forgery. When a document is assailed on the basis of forgery, the best evidence rule applies Basic is the rule of evidence that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself except in the instances mentioned in Section 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court. Mere photocopies of documents are inadmissible pursuant to the best evidence rule. This is especially true when the issue is that of forgery. As a rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery. The best evidence of a forged signature in an instrument is the instrument itself reflecting the alleged forged signature. The fact of forgery can only be established by a comparison between the alleged forged signature and the authentic and genuine signature of the person whose signature is theorized upon to have been forged. Without the original document containing the alleged forged signature, one cannot make a definitive comparison which would establish forgery. A comparison based on a mere xerox copy or reproduction of the document under controversy cannot produce reliable results. Respondent made several attempts to have the original copy of the pledge produced before the

RTC so as to have it examined by experts. Yet, despite several Orders by the RTC, petitioner Citibank failed to comply with the production of the original Declaration of Pledge. It is admitted that Citibank-Geneva had possession of the original copy of the pledge. While petitioner Citibank in Manila and its branch in Geneva may be separate and distinct entities, they are still incontestably related, and between petitioner Citibank and respondent, the former had more influence and resources to convince Citibank-Geneva to return, albeit temporarily, the original Declaration of Pledge. Petitioner Citibank did not present any evidence to convince this Court that it had exerted diligent efforts to secure the original copy of the pledge, nor did it proffer the reason why Citibank-Geneva obstinately refused to give it back, when such document would have been very vital to the case of petitioner Citibank. There is thus no justification to allow the presentation of a mere photocopy of the Declaration of Pledge in lieu of the original, and the photocopy of the pledge presented by petitioner Citibank has nil probative value. In addition, even if this Court cannot make a categorical finding that respondents signature on the original copy of the pledge was forged, it is persuaded that petitioner Citibank willfully suppressed the presentation of the original document, and takes into consideration the presumption that the evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse to petitioner Citibank if produced. As far as the Declaration of Pledge is concerned, petitioners failed to submit any new evidence or argument that was not already considered by this Court when it rendered its Decision. As to the value of the dollar deposits in Citibank-Geneva ordered refunded to respondent In case petitioners are still ordered to refund to respondent the amount of her dollar accounts with Citibank-Geneva, petitioners beseech this Court to adjust the nominal values of respondents dollar accounts and/or her overdue peso loans by using the values of the currencies stipulated at the time the obligations were established in 1979, to address the alleged inequitable consequences resulting from the extreme and extraordinary devaluation of the Philippine currency that occurred in the course of the Asian crisis of 1997. Petitioners base their request on Article 1250 of the Civil Code which reads, "In case an extraordinary inflation or deflation of the currency stipulated should supervene, the value of the currency at the time of the establishment of the obligation shall be the basis of payment, unless there is an agreement to the contrary." It is well-settled that Article 1250 of the Civil Code becomes applicable only when there is extraordinary inflation or deflation of the currency. Inflation has been defined as the sharp increase of money or credit or both without a corresponding increase in business transaction. There is inflation when there is an increase in the volume of money and credit relative to available goods resulting in a substantial and continuing rise in the general price level. 19 In Singson v. Caltex (Philippines), Inc.,20 this Court already provided a discourse as to what constitutes as extraordinary inflation or deflation of currency, thus We have held extraordinary inflation to exist when there is a decrease or increase in the purchasing power of the Philippine currency which is unusual or beyond the common fluctuation in the value of said currency, and such increase or decrease could not have been reasonably foreseen or was manifestly beyond the contemplation of the parties at the time of the establishment of the obligation. An example of extraordinary inflation, as cited by the Court in Filipino Pipe and Foundry Corporation vs. NAWASA, supra, is that which happened to the deutschmark in 1920. Thus: "More recently, in the 1920s, Germany experienced a case of hyperinflation. In early 1921, the value of the German mark was 4.2 to the U.S. dollar. By May of the same year, it had stumbled to 62 to the U.S. dollar. And as prices went up rapidly, so that by October 1923, it had reached 4.2 trillion to the U.S. dollar!" (Bernardo M. Villegas & Victor R. Abola, Economics, An

Introduction [Third Edition]). As reported, "prices were going up every week, then every day, then every hour. Women were paid several times a day so that they could rush out and exchange their money for something of value before what little purchasing power was left dissolved in their hands. Some workers tried to beat the constantly rising prices by throwing their money out of the windows to their waiting wives, who would rush to unload the nearly worthless paper. A postage stamp cost millions of marks and a loaf of bread, billions." (Sidney Rutberg, "The Money Balloon", New York: Simon and Schuster, 1975, p. 19, cited in "Economics, An Introduction" by Villegas & Abola, 3rd ed.) The supervening of extraordinary inflation is never assumed. The party alleging it must lay down the factual basis for the application of Article 1250. Thus, in the Filipino Pipe case, the Court acknowledged that the voluminous records and statistics submitted by plaintiff-appellant proved that there has been a decline in the purchasing power of the Philippine peso, but this downward fall cannot be considered "extraordinary" but was simply a universal trend that has not spared our country. Similarly, in Huibonhoa vs. Court of Appeals, the Court dismissed plaintiff-appellant's unsubstantiated allegation that the Aquino assassination in 1983 caused building and construction costs to double during the period July 1983 to February 1984. In Serra vs. Court of Appeals, the Court again did not consider the decline in the peso's purchasing power from 1983 to 1985 to be so great as to result in an extraordinary inflation. Like the Serra and Huibonhoa cases, the instant case also raises as basis for the application of Article 1250 the Philippine economic crisis in the early 1980s --- when, based on petitioner's evidence, the inflation rate rose to 50.34% in 1984. We hold that there is no legal or factual basis to support petitioner's allegation of the existence of extraordinary inflation during this period, or, for that matter, the entire time frame of 1968 to 1983, to merit the adjustment of the rentals in the lease contract dated July 16, 1968. Although by petitioner's evidence there was a decided decline in the purchasing power of the Philippine peso throughout this period, we are hard put to treat this as an "extraordinary inflation" within the meaning and intent of Article 1250. Rather, we adopt with approval the following observations of the Court of Appeals on petitioner's evidence, especially the NEDA certification of inflation rates based on consumer price index: xxx (a) from the period 1966 to 1986, the official inflation rate never exceeded 100% in any single year; (b) the highest official inflation rate recorded was in 1984 which reached only 50.34%; (c) over a twenty one (21) year period, the Philippines experienced a single-digit inflation in ten (10) years (i.e., 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1983 and 1986); (d) in other years (i.e., 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1984 and 1989) when the Philippines experienced double-digit inflation rates, the average of those rates was only 20.88%; (e) while there was a decline in the purchasing power of the Philippine currency from the period 1966 to 1986, such cannot be considered as extraordinary; rather, it is a normal erosion of the value of the Philippine peso which is a characteristic of most currencies. "Erosion" is indeed an accurate description of the trend of decline in the value of the peso in the past three to four decades. Unfortunate as this trend may be, it is certainly distinct from the phenomenon contemplated by Article 1250. Moreover, this Court has held that the effects of extraordinary inflation are not to be applied without an official declaration thereof by competent authorities. The burden of proving that there had been extraordinary inflation or deflation of the currency is

upon the party that alleges it. Such circumstance must be proven by competent evidence, and it cannot be merely assumed. In this case, petitioners presented no proof as to how much, for instance, the price index of goods and services had risen during the intervening period. 21 All the information petitioners provided was the drop of the U.S. dollar-Philippine peso exchange rate by 17 points from June 1997 to January 1998. While the said figure was based on the statistics of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), it is also significant to note that the BSP did not categorically declare that the same constitute as an extraordinary inflation. The existence of extraordinary inflation must be officially proclaimed by competent authorities, and the only competent authority so far recognized by this Court to make such an official proclamation is the BSP.22 Neither can this Court, by merely taking judicial notice of the Asian currency crisis in 1997, already declare that there had been extraordinary inflation. It should be recalled that the Philippines likewise experienced economic crisis in the 1980s, yet this Court did not find that extraordinary inflation took place during the said period so as to warrant the application of Article 1250 of the Civil Code. Furthermore, it is incontrovertible that Article 1250 of the Civil Code is based on equitable considerations. Among the maxims of equity are (1) he who seeks equity must do equity, and (2) he who comes into equity must come with clean hands. The latter is a frequently stated maxim which is also expressed in the principle that he who has done inequity shall not have equity.23 Petitioner Citibank, hence, cannot invoke Article 1250 of the Civil Code because it does not come to court with clean hands. The delay in the recovery24 by respondent of her dollar accounts with Citibank-Geneva was due to the unlawful act of petitioner Citibank in using the same to liquidate respondents loans. Petitioner Citibank even attempted to justify the offsetting or compensation of respondents loans using her dollar accounts with Citibank -Geneva by the presentation of a highly suspicious and irregular, and even possibly forged, Declaration of Pledge. The damage caused to respondent of the deprivation of her dollar accounts for more than two decades is unquestionably relatively more extensive and devastating, as compared to whatever damage petitioner Citibank, an international banking corporation with undoubtedly substantial capital, may have suffered for respondents non -payment of her loans. It must also be remembered that petitioner Citibank had already considered respondents loans paid or liquidated by 26 October 1979 after it had fully effected compensation thereof using respondents deposits and money market placements. All this time, respondents dollar accounts are unlawfully in the possession of and are being used by petitioner Citibank for its business transactions. In the meantime, respondents businesses failed and her properties were foreclosed because she was denied access to her funds when she needed them most. Taking these into consideration, respondents dollar accounts with Citibank-Geneva must be deemed to be subsisting and continuously deposited with petitioner Citibank all this while, and will only be presently withdrawn by respondent. Therefore, petitioner Citibank should refund to respondent the U.S. $149,632.99 taken from her Citibank-Geneva accounts, or its equivalent in Philippine currency using the exchange rate at the time of payment, plus the stipulated interest for each of the fiduciary placements and current accounts involved, beginning 26 October 1979. As to respondents Motion to Clarify and/or Confirm Decision with Notice of Judgment Respondent, in her Motion, is of the mistaken notion that the Court of Appeals Decision, dated 26 March 2002, as modified by the Resolution of the same court, dated 20 November 2002, would be implemented or executed together with this Courts Decision. This Court clarifies that its affirmation of the Decision of the Court of Appeals, as modified, is only to the extent that it recognizes that petitioners had liabilities to the respondent. However,

this Courts Decision modified that of the appellate courts by makin g its own determination of the specific liabilities of the petitioners to respondent and the amounts thereof; as well as by recognizing that respondent also had liabilities to petitioner Citibank and the amount thereof. Thus, for purposes of execution, the parties need only refer to the dispositive portion of this Courts Decision, dated 16 October 2006, should it already become final and executory, without any further modifications. As the last point, there is no merit in respondents Motion for this Court to already declare its Decision, dated 16 October 2006, final and executory. A judgment becomes final and executory by operation of law and, accordingly, the finality of the judgment becomes a fact upon the lapse of the reglementary period without an appeal or a motion for new trial or reconsideration being filed.25 This Court cannot arbitrarily disregard the reglementary period and declare a judgment final and executory upon the mere motion of one party, for to do so will be a culpable violation of the right of the other parties to due process. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, petitioners Motion for Partial Reconsideration of this Courts Decision, dated 16 October 2006, and respondents Motion for this Court to declare the same Decision already final and executory, are both DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.

Paray & Espeleta v. Rodriguez, et al., 479 SCRA 571 (2006). The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals took off on the premise that pledged shares of stock auctioned off in a notarial sale could still be redeemed by their owners. This notion is wrong, and we thus reverse. The facts, as culled from the record, follow. Respondents were the owners, in their respective personal capacities, of shares of stock in a corporation known as the Quirino-Leonor-Rodriguez Realty Inc.[1] Sometime during the years 1979 to 1980, respondents secured by way of pledge of some of their shares of stock to petitioners Bonifacio and Faustina Paray (Parays) the payment of certain loan obligations. The shares pledged are listed below: Miguel Rodriguez Jariol .1,000 shares covered by Stock Certificates No. 011, 060, 061 & 062; Abdulia C. Rodriguez . 300 shares covered by Stock Certificates No. 023 & 093; Leonora R. Nolasco .. 407 shares covered by Stock Certificates No. 091 & 092; Genoveva Soronio. 699 shares covered by Stock Certificates No. 025, 059 & 099; Dolores R. Soberano. 699 shares covered by Stock Certificates No. 021, 053, 022 & 097;

Julia Generoso .. Teresita Natividad..

1,100 shares covered by Stock Certificates No. 085, 051, 086 & 084; 440 shares covered by Stock Certificates Nos. 054 & 055[2]

When the Parays attempted to foreclose the pledges on account of respondents failure to pay their loans, respondents filed complaints with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City. The actions, which were consolidated and tried before RTC Branch 14, Cebu City, sought the declaration of nullity of the pledge agreements, among others. However the RTC, in its decision[3] dated 14 October 1988, dismissed the complaint and gave due course to the foreclosure and sale at public auction of the variou s pledges subject of these two cases.[4] This decision attained finality after it was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. The Entry of Judgment was issued on 14 August 1991. Respondents then received Notices of Sale which indicated that the pledged shares were to be sold at public auction on 4 November 1991. However, before the scheduled date of auction, all of respondents caused the consignation with the RTC Clerk of Court of various amounts. It was claimed that respondents had attempted to tender these payments to the Parays, but had been rebuffed. The deposited amounts were as follows: Abdulia C. Rodriguez.. Leonora R. Nolasco . Genoveva R. Soronio Julia R. Generoso .. Teresita R. Natividad . Dolores R. Soberano .. Miguela Jariol . P 120,066.66 .. 14 Oct. 1991 277,381.82 .. 14 Oct. 1991 425,353.50 .. 14 Oct. 1991 38,385.44 .. 14 Oct. 1991 638,385.00 .. 25 Oct. 1991 264,375.00 .. 11 Nov. 1991 12,031.61.. 25 Oct. 1991 520,216.39 ..11 Nov. 1991 490,000.00.. 18 Oct. 1991 88,000.00 ..18 Oct. 1991[5]

Notwithstanding the consignations, the public auction took place as scheduled, with petitioner Vidal Espeleta successfully bidding the amount of P6,200,000.00 for all of the pledged shares. None of respondents participated or appeared at the auction of 4 November 1991. Respondents instead filed on 13 November 1991 a complaint seeking the declaration of nullity of the concluded public auction. The complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-10926, was assigned to Branch 16 of the Cebu City RTC. Respondents argued that their tender of payment and subsequent consignations served to extinguish their loan obligations and discharged the pledge contracts. Petitioners countered that the auction sale was conducted pursuant to the final and executory judgment in Civil Cases Nos. R-20120 and 20131, and that the tender of payment and consignations were made long after their obligations had fallen due. The Cebu City RTC dismissed the complaint, expressing agreement with the position of the Parays.[6] It held, among others that respondents had failed to tender or consign payments within a reasonable period after default and that the proper remedy of respondents was to have participated in the auction sale.[7] The Court of Appeals Eighth Division however reversed the RTC on appeal, ruling that the consignations extinguished the loan obligations and the subject pledge contracts; and the auction sale of 4 November 1991 as null and void.[8] Most crucially, the appellate court chose to uphold the sufficiency of the consignations owing to an imputed policy of the law that favored redemption and mandated a liberal construction to redemption laws. The attempts at payment by respondents were characterized as made in the exercise of the right of redemption. The Court of Appeals likewise found fault with the auction sale, holding that there was a need

to individually sell the various shares of stock as they had belonged to different pledgors. Thus, it was observed that the minutes of the auction sale should have specified in detail the bids submitted for each of the shares of the pledgors for the purpose of knowing the price to be paid by the different pledgors upon redemption of the auctioned sales of stock. Petitioners now argue before this Court that they were authorized to refuse as they did the tender of payment since they were undertaking the auction sale pursuant to the final and executory decision in Civil Cases Nos. R-20120 and 20131, which did not authorize the payment of the principal obligation by respondents. They point out that the amounts consigned could not extinguish the principal loan obligations of respondents since they were not sufficient to cover the interests due on the debt. They likewise argue that the essential procedural requisites for the auction sale had been satisfied. We rule in favor of petitioners. The fundamental premise from which the appellate court proceeded was that the consignations made by respondents should be construed in light of the rules of redemption, as if respondents were exercising such right. In that perspective, the Court of Appeals made three crucial conclusions favorable to respondents: that their act of consigning the payments with the RTC should be deemed done in the exercise of their right of redemption; that the buyer at public auction does not ipso facto become the owner of the pledged shares pending the lapse of the one-year redemptive period; and that the collective sale of the shares of stock belonging to several individual owners without specification of the apportionment in the applications of payment deprives the individual owners of the opportunity to know of the price they would have to pay for the purpose of exercising the right of redemption. The appellate courts dwelling on the right of redemption is utterly off -tangent. The right of redemption involves payments made by debtors after the foreclosure of their properties, and not those made or attempted to be made, as in this case, before the foreclosure sale. The proper focus of the Court of Appeals should have been whether the consignations made by respondents sufficiently acquitted them of their principal obligations. A pledge contract is an accessory contract, and is necessarily discharged if the principal obligation is extinguished. Nonetheless, the Court is now confronted with this rather new fangled theory, as propounded by the Court of Appeals, involving the right of redemption over pledged properties. We have no hesitation in pronouncing such theory as discreditable. Preliminarily, it must be clarified that the subject sale of pledged shares was an extrajudicial sale, specifically a notarial sale, as distinguished from a judicial sale as typified by an execution sale. Under the Civil Code, the foreclosure of a pledge occurs extrajudicially, without intervention by the courts. All the creditor needs to do, if the credit has not been satisfied in due time, is to proceed before a Notary Public to the sale of the thing pledged.[9] In this case, petitioners attempted as early as 1980 to proceed extrajudicially with the sale of the pledged shares by public auction. However, extrajudicial sale was stayed with the filing of Civil Cases No. R-20120 and 20131, which sought to annul the pledge contracts. The final and executory judgment in those cases affirmed the pledge contracts and disposed them in the following fashion: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the complaints at bar, and (1) Declaring the various pledges covered in Civil Cases Nos. R-20120 and R-20131 valid and effective; and (2) Giving due course to the foreclosure and sale at public auction of the various pledges subject of these two cases.

Costs against the plaintiffs. SO ORDERED.[10] The phrase giving due course to the foreclosure and sale at public auction of the various pledges subject of these two cases may give rise to the impression that such sale is judicial in character. While the decision did authorize the sale by public auction, such declaration could not detract from the fact that the sale so authorized is actually extrajudicial in character. Note that the final judgment in said cases expressly did not direct the sale by public auction of the pledged shares, but instead upheld the right of the Parays to conduct such sale at their own volition. Indeed, as affirmed by the Civil Code,[11] the decision to proceed with the sale by public auction remains in the sole discretion of the Parays, who could very well choose not to hold the sale without violating the final judgments in the aforementioned civil cases. If the sale were truly in compliance with a final judgment or order, the Parays would have no choice but to stage the sale for then the order directing the sale arises from judicial compulsion. But nothing in the dispositive portion directed the sale at public auction as a mandatory recourse, and properly so since the sale of pledged property in public auction is, by virtue of the Civil Code, extrajudicial in character. The right of redemption as affirmed under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court applies only to execution sales, more precisely execution sales of real property. The Court of Appeals expressly asserted the notion that pledged property, necessarily personal in character, may be redeemed by the creditor after being sold at public auction. Yet, as a fundamental matter, does the right of redemption exist over personal property? No law or jurisprudence establishes or affirms such right. Indeed, no such right exists. The right to redeem property sold as security for the satisfaction of an unpaid obligation does not exist preternaturally. Neither is it predicated on proprietary right, which, after the sale of property on execution, leaves the judgment debtor and vests in the purchaser. Instead, it is a bare statutory privilege to be exercised only by the persons named in the statute.[12] The right of redemption over mortgaged real property sold extrajudicially is established by Act No. 3135, as amended. The said law does not extend the same benefit to personal property. In fact, there is no law in our statute books which vests the right of redemption over personal property. Act No. 1508, or the Chattel Mortgage Law, ostensibly could have served as the vehicle for any legislative intent to bestow a right of redemption over personal property, since that law governs the extrajudicial sale of mortgaged personal property, but the statute is definitely silent on the point. And Section 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, extensively relied upon by the Court of Appeals, starkly utters that the right of redemption applies to real properties, not personal properties, sold on execution. Tellingly, this Court, as early as 1927, rejected the proposition that personal property may be covered by the right of redemption. In Sibal 1. v. Valdez,[13] the Court ruled that sugar cane crops are personal property, and thus, not subject to the right of redemption.[14] No countervailing statute has been enacted since then that would accord the right of redemption over personal property, hence the Court can affirm this decades-old ruling as effective to date. Since the pledged shares in this case are not subject to redemption, the Court of Appeals had no business invoking and applying the inexistent right of redemption. We cannot thus agree that the consigned payments should be treated with liberality, or somehow construed as having been made in the exercise of the right of redemption. We also must reject the appellate courts declaration that the buyer of at the public auction is not ipso facto rendered the owner of the auctioned shares, since the debtor

enjoys the one-year redemptive period to redeem the property. Obviously, since there is no right to redeem personal property, the rights of ownership vested unto the purchaser at the foreclosure sale are not entangled in any suspensive condition that is implicit in a redemptive period. The Court of Appeals also found fault with the apparent sale in bulk of the pledged shares, notwithstanding the fact that these shares were owned by several people, on the premise the pledgors would be denied the opportunity to know exactly how much they would need to shoulder to exercise the right to redemption. This concern is obviously rendered a non-issue by the fact that there can be no right to redemption in the first place. Rule 39 of the Rules of Court does provide for instances when properties foreclosed at the same time must be sold separately, such as in the case of lot sales for real property under Section 19. However, these instances again pertain to execution sales and not extrajudicial sales. No provision in the Rules of Court or in any law requires that pledged properties sold at auction be sold separately. On the other hand, under the Civil Code, it is the pledgee, and not the pledgor, who is given the right to choose which of the items should be sold if two or more things are pledged.[15] No similar option is given to pledgors under the Civil Code. Moreover, there is nothing in the Civil Code provisions governing the extrajudicial sale of pledged properties that prohibits the pledgee of several different pledge contracts from auctioning all of the pledged properties on a single occasion, or from the buyer at the auction sale in purchasing all the pledged properties with a single purchase price. The relative insignificance of ascertaining the definite apportionments of the sale price to the individual shares lies in the fact that once a pledged item is sold at auction, neither the pledgee nor the pledgor can recover whatever deficiency or excess there may be between the purchase price and the amount of the principal obligation.[16] A different ruling though would obtain if at the auction, a bidder expressed the desire to bid on a determinate number or portion of the pledged shares. In such a case, there may lie the need to ascertain with particularity which of the shares are covered by the bid price, since not all of the shares may be sold at the auction and correspondingly not all of the pledge contracts extinguished. The same situation also would lie if one or some of the owners of the pledged shares participated in the auction, bidding only on their respective pledged shares. However, in this case, none of the pledgors participated in the auction, and the sole bidder cast his bid for all of the shares. There obviously is no longer any practical reason to apportion the bid price to the respective shares, since no matter how slight or significant the value of the purchase price for the individual share is, the sale is completed, with the pledgor and the pledgee not entitled to recover the excess or the deficiency, as the case may be. To invalidate the subject auction solely on this point serves no cause other than to celebrate formality for formalitys sake. Clearly, the theory adopted by the Court of Appeals is in shambles, and cannot be resurrected. The question though yet remains whether the consignations made by respondents extinguished their respective pledge contracts in favor of the Parays so as to enjoin the latter from auctioning the pledged shares. There is no doubt that if the principal obligation is satisfied, the pledges should be terminated as well. Article 2098 of the Civil Code provides that the right of the creditor to retain possession of the pledged item exists only until the debt is paid. Article 2105 of the Civil Code further clarifies that the debtor cannot ask for the return of the thing pledged against the will of the creditor, unless and until he has paid the debt and its interest. At the same time, the right of the pledgee to foreclose the pledge is also established under the Civil Code. When the credit has not been satisfied in due time, the creditor may proceed with the sale by public auction under the procedure provided under Article 2112 of the Code. Respondents argue that their various consignations made prior to the auction sale discharged them from the loan and the pledge agreements. They are mistaken. Petitioners point out that while the amounts consigned by respondents could answer for their

respective principal loan obligations, they were not sufficient to cover the interests due on these loans, which were pegged at the rate of 5% per month or 60% per annum. Before this Court, respondents, save for Dolores Soberano, do not contest this interest rate as alleged by petitioners. Soberano, on the other hand, challenges this interest rate as usurious.[17] The particular pledge contracts did not form part of the records elevated to this Court. However, the 5% monthly interest rate was noted in the statement of facts in the 14 October 1988 RTC Decision which had since become final. Moreover, the said decision pronounced that even assuming that the interest rates of the various loans were 5% per month, it is doubtful whether the interests so charged were exorbitantly or excessively usurious. This is because for sometime now, usury has become legally inexistent.[18] The finality of this 1988 Decision is a settled fact, and thus the time to challenge the validity of the 5% monthly interest rate had long passed. With that in mind, there is no reason for the Court to disagree with petitioners that in order that the consignation could have the effect of extinguishing the pledge contracts, such amounts should cover not just the principal loans, but also the 5% monthly interests thereon. It bears noting that the Court of Appeals also ruled that respondents had satisfied the requirements under Section 18, Rule 39, which provides that the judgment obligor may prevent the sale by paying the amount required by the execution and the costs that have been incurred therein.[19] However, the provision applies only to execution sales, and not extra-judicial sales, as evidenced by the use of the phrases sale of property on execution and judgment obligor. The reference is inapropos, and even if it were applicable, the failure of the payment to cover the interests due renders it insufficient to stay the sale. The effect of the finality of the judgments in Civil Cases Nos. R-20120 and R-20131 should also not be discounted. Petitioners right to proceed with the auction sale was affirmed not only by law, but also by a final court judgment. Any subsequent court ruling that would enjoin the petitioners from exercising such right would have the effect of superseding a final and executory judgment. Finally, we cannot help but observe that respondents may have saved themselves much trouble if they simply participated in the auction sale, as they are permitted to bid themselves on their pledged properties.[20] Moreover, they would have had a better right had they

matched the terms of the highest bidder.[21] Under the circumstances, with the high interest payments that accrued after several years, respondents were even placed in a favorable position by the pledge agreements, since the creditor would be unable to recover any deficiency from the debtors should the sale price be insufficient to cover the principal amounts with interests. Certainly, had respondents participated in the auction, there would have been a chance for them to recover the shares at a price lower than the amount that was actually due from them to the Parays. That respondents failed to avail of this beneficial resort wholly accorded them by law is their loss. Now, all respondents can recover is the amounts they had consigned. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE and the decision of the Cebu City RTC, Branch 16, dated 18 November 1992 is REINSTATED. Costs against respondents. SO ORDERED.